If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsBusters)   Zimmerman's lawyer: Hey I thought he was guilty and believed everything the media said before I became his lawyer, then I saw the facts, presented it in court and won. Not my fault Americans are a factless lynch mob   (newsbusters.org) divider line 442
    More: Interesting, Mark O'Mara, Benjamin Crump, Alan Dershowitz, guilty  
•       •       •

2795 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 1:38 PM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-15 05:03:03 PM

Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). Georg ...


A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.
 
2013-07-15 05:03:34 PM

Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

Entirely, completely, 100%, wholly irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter who started it.  It matters who escalated it to lethal force.  The only evidence that speaks to this says that Martin did so.  Ergo, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.  Not guilty *gavel* trial over.


It doesn't matter who started it? So I can just go pick a fight with someone and let them kick my ass enough and then shoot them, and that's totally okay? And I love that Martin's "lethal force" resulted in a broken nose and some cuts to the back of a bald guy's head.
 
2013-07-15 05:04:31 PM

Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.


Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.
 
2013-07-15 05:04:46 PM

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.


No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.
 
2013-07-15 05:05:19 PM

Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.

It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.

It's your 1-3. Your 4 is that Martin called his girlfriend after 1-3 happened. Is that not the case? Also, nobody has established that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimerman says that's what happened, and the girlfriend said she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" and then the phone line went dead. There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.


"My" 1-3 is from the trial.  What point are you trying to make here?  If 1-3 did not happen that way, what do you think did happen?  Seriously, put up or shut up.

Testimony from various witnesses, and evidence support the theory that TM struck GZ in the face, that GZ's head hit the sidewalk, and that GZ shot TM while GZ was on the ground and TM was standing over him.

What's your theory? If TM didn't hit GZ, how did GZ get his injuries?

GZ was for some reason lying on his back on the rain-covered sidewalk by himself, TM walked over and GZ spontaneously shot him, and then TM punched GZ before collapsing?

Or are you thinking GZ broke his own nose and smacked his own head on the pavement immediately after shooting TM?  While inexplicably lying on his back while TM stood over him?

Or did assailants unknown appear, punch GZ, and disappear, and then GZ shot TM?  Was TM standing over GZ trying to help him?
 
2013-07-15 05:06:17 PM

jigoro: El Pachuco: Ninepoundhammer: Let's remove all subjectivity from this for a moment:

Fact: Martin was an unarmed 17 year old breaking no laws or standards of behavior
Fact: Zimmerman is not an officer of the law
Fact: Zimmerman actively pursued martin after he was told not to
Fact: Zimmerman's pursuit led to a confrontation
Fact: When confronted the unarmed Martin stood his ground and defended himself.

This is untrue, and your narrative falls apart here.

Based on trial testimony and evidence, TM and GZ had a verbal confrontation while GZ was seated in his vehicle.  TM then left the area, out of GZ's field of view.

GZ parked his vehicle, got out, and stood on the sidewalk while making a call to 911.  GZ told the 911 operator he didn't know where TM had gone.

What, the reception was bad inside the car?

based on

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Testimony and evidence indicates that GZ was punched in the face hard enough that his nose was broken. Testimony and evidence indicates that the back of GZ's head impacted the sidewalk. Testimony and evidence indicates that TM was on top of GM. Forensic expert Dr. Vincent Di Maio testified that the evidence from Martin's autopsy is "consistent with somebody leaning over the person doing the shooting."

And? Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Some guy is following you around. You lose him, but he finds you again. You run, and hide in order to get the drop on him in case he follows. And he DOES follow you so you do what you think needs to be done, because you've done nothing wrong and you're scared, and there's no reason for some guy to be following you. In the ensuing kerfuffle, you discover the guy had a gun. Holy shiat, HE REALLY WAS TRYING TO ROB OR KILL YOU!!!! Now you're truly scared for your life, and you do your best to completely subdue your opponent, because he's got a gun and you're certain he's going to try to kill you. And then he kills you.

Your version is incorrect, based on the testimony and evidence at the trial.

The trial narrative:

1. GZ in his vehicle sees TM, and follows TM while still in his vehicle.
2. TM confronts GZ, still in his vehicle.  TM asks GZ why he is following him, circles the vehicle, and walks away.
3. GZ parks the vehicle, stands on sidewalk, calls 911 and tells the operator he has lost sight of TM and does not know which way he went.  (It is night, and raining - poor visibility).
4. TM calls Raquel Jeantel and tells her he's now at his father's fiance's house, some 300 feet from GZ.
5. TM goes back to where GZ is standing.
6. Fight occurs, and TM's body is found in the area where GZ was standing.

Your statement,  You lose him, but he finds you again. is the opposite of what actually happened.


GZ was following him on foot and not in the car, if you listen to the 911 call you can hear GZ clearly running after TM, unless he gets winded driving his car
 
2013-07-15 05:06:53 PM
The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:21 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.


Have you seen Zimmerman's MySpace?

I'm guessing you haven't.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:36 PM

Mike Chewbacca: Click Click D'oh: Mike Chewbacca:  There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

Entirely, completely, 100%, wholly irrelevant.

As in, it doesn't matter who started it.  It matters who escalated it to lethal force.  The only evidence that speaks to this says that Martin did so.  Ergo, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.  Not guilty *gavel* trial over.

It doesn't matter who started it? So I can just go pick a fight with someone and let them kick my ass enough and then shoot them, and that's totally okay? And I love that Martin's "lethal force" resulted in a broken nose and some cuts to the back of a bald guy's head.


Under Florida law, an aggressor to a confrontation may only argue that the use of deadly force was justified if an attempt to retreat occurred but was unsuccessful, or if retreat was demonstrably not possible.
 
2013-07-15 05:08:47 PM

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.


As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.
 
2013-07-15 05:09:54 PM

Zerochance: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.


Unless Mr. Zimmerman's behaviour created a reasonable fear of imminent grievous injury or death, Mr. Martin's physical attack was not justified, and Mr. Zimmerman's use of force was justified as a response to the attack.
 
2013-07-15 05:11:02 PM

Zerochance: No, but Zimmerman did initiate the confrontation, which is the root of the whole thing.  I would also argue that a gunshot to the farking gut counts as evidence of a physical attack.


Trial testimony has TM approaching GZ's vehicle and asking why GZ was following him.  That's TM initiating the confrontation.

Trial testimony and evidence then has TM at his father's fiance's house, and then going back 300 feet to where GZ was standing.  Again, TM initiates contact - GZ did not pursue TM, TM went back to GZ.
 
2013-07-15 05:11:09 PM
I never thought GZ was racist, in fact, wasn't much of the race stuff first brought up because it went 44 days before he was arrested? i thought the racism was in the fact that it took that long to arrest someone for killing a black kid and that if the child was white there'd be an outrage if someone wasnt arrested that day. Then the prosecution/media took it and changed it into "he killed him cause he was black"
 
2013-07-15 05:11:56 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.


Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.
 
2013-07-15 05:12:04 PM

Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.


Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.
 
2013-07-15 05:13:29 PM

Bartman66: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Fart_Machine: ShadowKamui: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: Mike Chewbacca: Bartman66: king_nacho: antidisestablishmentarianism: Guilty or not if he would have stayed in his car this whole thing would have never happened.

You haven't got a clue what would have happened. If Martin hadn't punched him in the face, this wouldn't have happened either.

EXACTLY .. Gee.. which one of those two things are legal? getting out of your car (even if ASKED not told if you do that is  illegal and you can go to jail) and following someone or assalting someone (even if he was some crazy cracker as his girlfriend testified he said) ??
I wonder what would have happened if Trayvon would of just said My parents live right over there and I am just going home instead of trying attacking him and trying to bash his head into the concrete?? Just curious?

Why should Trayvon Martin have to tell a stranger where he lives to justify his presence in that neighborhood? Was he committing a crime by being there? No. We don't live in a "papers, please" nation quite yet. You think it is perfectly appropriate for Trayvon Martin to prove that he deserved be in his own neighborhood, yet you are incredibly offended by the idea that George Zimmerman's bad decision-making skills cost a young man his life.

So again... so instead of telling him he lived there instead attack the guy?? really? is this your argument?

If a creepy guy is following 17-year-old you around, would you do the sensible thing, or would you freak out and assume the worst? The issue is that George Zimmerman was the adult, and the person in a position of authority and responsibility. He failed at the most basic job duty (keeping his neighborhood safe) and escalated a non-situation into one of violence and death. I have a hard time blaming a teenager for being a dumb teenager because we all know teenagers are dumb. That's why we don't let them vote, or drink, or buy smokes, or join the military (without parental permission). Georg ...

A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.


Well that would be from what we know about his injuries and even Good testified that he didn't see Martin banging Zimmerman's head against the concrete.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:41 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: The GZ hate is strong, but misplaced.

GZ has zero history of racism.  Is he a racist in his heart?  No one knows (expect some farkers).  The evidence is to the contrary.

Per this article, GZ lead the protest against the son of the local police chief accused in beating a homeless black man.  Ironically, some of those he was protesting later investigated his case.  http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/letter-allegedly-written-gunman-g e orge-zimmermans-/nMKFD/

GZ apparently was very active in his mostly black church congregation and went into business with his African American business partner.

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.


Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 to report "suspicious activity", mainly by black males - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-h i story-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:47 PM

Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.


I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal. I assert only that no evidence implicates Mr. Zimmerman in any criminal act prior to his physical altercation with Mr. Martin, and that no evidence indicates that Mr. Martin's physical attack against Mr. Zimmerman was justified. I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.
 
2013-07-15 05:14:52 PM
Zerochance:
What part of what I posted is wrong?  Zimmerman did have a restraining order against him filed by his ex for domestic violence. So did  he against that same girlfriend, no arrest He was arrested for assaulting an officer. Intervened on behalf of a friend who was being harassed by an undercover cop, no charges filed He had a history of calling in to 911 to report perceived threats that's what NW people do.  It's certainly a more factually-based opinion than the ITG brigade stopping itself short from saying Trayvon deserved to die merely for being a punk-ass kid. Nobody has ever said that.

Seriously it's really easy to tell when someone knows only what the race-baiters have told them to think.

the next part of the song will no doubt include 'HE WAS ORDERED BY THE POLICE NOT TO FOLLOW" "GZ WAS A RACIST STALKER" and, my personal favorite "TM WAS AFRAID AND ONLY DEFENDING HIMSELF"
 
2013-07-15 05:15:07 PM

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: The trial narrative? You mean George Zimmerman's narrative, because steps 1-3 happened when the only two witnesses are TM and GZ, and TM is dead.

It's backed up by GZ's 911 call tapes, testimony from the 911 operator and testimony from Raquel Jeantel from her phone conversation with TM.

If you have a different version of steps 1-3 please tell us what happened, and what evidence or testimony you have to support it.

It's your 1-3. Your 4 is that Martin called his girlfriend after 1-3 happened. Is that not the case? Also, nobody has established that Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimerman says that's what happened, and the girlfriend said she heard Martin say "Why are you following me?" and then the phone line went dead. There is no evidence to support either claim of who started it.

"My" 1-3 is from the trial.  What point are you trying to make here?  If 1-3 did not happen that way, what do you think did happen?  Seriously, put up or shut up.

Testimony from various witnesses, and evidence support the theory that TM struck GZ in the face, that GZ's head hit the sidewalk, and that GZ shot TM while GZ was on the ground and TM was standing over him.

What's your theory? If TM didn't hit GZ, how did GZ get his injuries?

GZ was for some reason lying on his back on the rain-covered sidewalk by himself, TM walked over and GZ spontaneously shot him, and then TM punched GZ before collapsing?

Or are you thinking GZ broke his own nose and smacked his own head on the pavement immediately after shooting TM?  While inexplicably lying on his back while TM stood over him?

Or did assailants unknown appear, punch GZ, and disappear, and then GZ shot TM?  Was TM standing over GZ trying to help him?


We don't know who threw the first punch. If it was Zimmerman, then Zimmerman should be in jail. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman should probably still be in jail because he's the one who escalated the situation by chasing after Martin on foot. The girlfriend has also stated that Martin told her that he'd lost Zimmerman, but then Zimmerman found him again. Zimmerman also never identified himself as neighborhood watch, but instead rolled up his windows when Martin circled his truck on foot before running away. And please note that Martin's father wasn't home at the time of the shooting, so it's not like Martin running home would have helped him in any way.

It's amazing how many people can so easily put themselves into George Zimmerman's shoes but find it so hard to understand why a 17-year-old kid might be so scared as to resort to violence.
 
2013-07-15 05:15:33 PM

Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.

Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.


And there is neither physical evidence nor witness testimony that supports a claim that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.
 
2013-07-15 05:18:14 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio: Philip Francis Queeg: Dimensio:

Speculation is not evidence.

It is when it indicates that Martin viciously attacked poor helpless Zimmerman.

You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

It would be impossible for Zimmerman to have injuries if he had attacked Martin, and Martin defended himself? Did the witness see who struck first? Did he see every moment of the encounter?

Absent evidence of a physical attack upon Mr. Martin, no valid reason exists to assume that Mr. Zimmerman initiated the physical attack.

As I said, speculation is evidence when it shows what YOU want it to show.

Physical evidence and witness testimony support the claim that Mr. Martin physically struck Mr. Zimmerman.

I am aware of neither physical evidence nor witness testimony supporting a claim that Mr. Zimmerman attacked Mr. Martin beforehand.

And there is neither physical evidence nor witness testimony that supports a claim that Martin initiated the physical confrontation.


Exactly. A fight happened. It seems that at the time of the shooting, Martin was on top of Zimmerman. That does not indicate who threw the first punch.
 
2013-07-15 05:18:45 PM

Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch. If it was Zimmerman, then Zimmerman should be in jail. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman should probably still be in jail because he's the one who escalated the situation by chasing after Martin on foot. The girlfriend has also stated that Martin told her that he'd lost Zimmerman, but then Zimmerman found him again. Zimmerman also never identified himself as neighborhood watch, but instead rolled up his windows when Martin circled his truck on foot before running away. And please note that Martin's father wasn't home at the time of the shooting, so it's not like Martin running home would have helped him in any way.

It's amazing how many people can so easily put themselves into George Zimmerman's shoes but find it so hard to understand why a 17-year-old kid might be so scared as to resort to violence.


This amazes me, too.  I've gotten a few folks here to at least admit that Martin could have been scared of the potential rapist, weirdo stranger who was following him in an SUV and then on foot and staring at him.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:28 PM

Dimensio: I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.


And, as we have said, considering that there were no eyewitnesses to the actual fight, and Trayvon was unarmed and now dead, Zimmerman's assertion that he acted in self-defense is also speculation.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:31 PM

Dimensio: Some individuals speculate that Mr. Zimmerman displayed his firearm to Mr. Martin and that Mr. Martin's continued assault was an attempt to stop Mr. Zimmerman from shooting him. They then claim that their baseless speculation is proof that Mr. Martin's actions were justified self-defense.


Damn. You called it. Are you a wizard?

Mike Chewbacca: A "what if scenario" only partially supported by the evidence spun out the fantasy in your head


You just spent time spinning a fantasy about what happened that night - a story of what you think might have happened, if you will - in an attempt to justify Martin's continued assault of Zimmerman after Zimmerman started screaming for help and after a witness told Martin to stop and that he (the witness) was calling the police.

The problem with this is that you said Martin's unrelenting physical attack against Zimmerman wasn't justifiable.

Do you see the problem here? Are you intellectually dishonest, or is it that you are so simple minded that you cannot maintain simple consistency in your arguments from one moment to the next?
I get that you're angry that a teen is dead, but you're turning cartwheels with your emotional outrage trying to avoid the simple fact that if Martin had stopped, rather continue to escalate the violence he was using against Zimmerman, Zimmerman would not have been forced to shoot him in order to get him to stop.
 
2013-07-15 05:19:49 PM

Dimensio: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: You are mistaken. That Mr. Martin attacked Mr. Zimmerman is evidenced by Mr. Zimmerman's injuries and by testimony of a witness who observed the attack.

Nobody witnessed the attack.  A neighbor saw somebody on top of somebody else and by clothing it appeared to be Martin.

What's galling about this whole debate is the pure, confident certainty with which Zimmerman apologists argue what happened that night.  Coupled with the absurdly ridiculous approach of pretending the whole incident magically began when these two guys grappled without considering anything that led to that point and you guys are arguing, at best, a fantasy narrative wholly influenced by a guy trying to beat a murder charge and his lawyers.

None of us personally knew either guy.  We can't speak with any authority to whether Martin was a "thug" or Zimmerman was a "racist."  On the other hand any attempt to lionize either man is insane.  I would argue this is especially in the case of Zimmerman who made some bad choices that wound up costing somebody else his life.  He's certainly not any kind of hero.

I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal. I assert only that no evidence implicates Mr. Zimmerman in any criminal act prior to his physical altercation with Mr. Martin, and that no evidence indicates that Mr. Martin's physical attack against Mr. Zimmerman was justified. I have requested, from numerous individuals who claim that Mr. Martin's attack was self-defense, a description of the behaviour of Mr. Zimmerman that would have justified the use of force against him, but thus far I have received only admitted speculation in response.


So you are going with "he immersed himself in the African American community for show"  The delusion is so incredibly strong in you it must hurt just to walk upright.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:20 PM

Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch.


There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that GZ punched TM at any point.
 
2013-07-15 05:20:58 PM
Zerochance:

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.

My bad, my previous comment was meant for you
 
2013-07-15 05:21:16 PM

gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.


Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.
 
2013-07-15 05:23:09 PM

Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal


Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?
 
2013-07-15 05:23:26 PM

Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.


I'm not even talking about the justification for the shooting.  I'm saying that his boo-boos were not too ouchie.  Compare Zimmerman's boo-boos to an MMA fight and the time it takes for an MMA fighter to have someone kiss it make it feel better.
 
2013-07-15 05:24:09 PM
Zerochance:

As for "Why was he out there" There had been frequent break ins in the neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and Zimmerman was on the look out.  Seems reasonable - Break ins and neighborhood watch guy is keeping an eye out.  I think he had called the police dozens of times over the previous months because he was suspicious of this or that.

Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911 to report "suspicious activity", mainly by black males - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-h i story-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

There's no farking way all of those calls were justified.  I would argue that his involvement with the black community was obviously very public (probably sagely for someone pursuing a career in criminal justice) but in his private life, he felt rather differently.


46 calls over 6 years, 6 of those mention black males.

fry the bastard, right?
 
2013-07-15 05:24:56 PM

Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.


And if Martin, NOT YOU, felt that Zimmerman was putting his life in danger what was he justified in doing?
 
2013-07-15 05:25:29 PM

Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?


Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?
 
2013-07-15 05:26:02 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.

And if Martin, NOT YOU, felt that Zimmerman was putting his life in danger what was he justified in doing?


This is what people like us just don't get.  Zimmerman had a right to self-defense and to stand his ground if he felt his life was in danger, regardless of how badly he was injured.  Martin had none of those rights.
 
2013-07-15 05:27:12 PM
BUT WHAT IF MARTIN WAS WHITE/ZIMMERMAN WAS DEAD/THERE WAS NO GUN/FIRE WAS COLD/EARTH WAS FLAT/HORSES COULD TALK

If things were different, the outcome would be different. Please stop pretending that has any bearing on what we know to be the facts and the outcome of those facts.
 
2013-07-15 05:28:14 PM

gimmegimme: Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.

I'm not even talking about the justification for the shooting.  I'm saying that his boo-boos were not too ouchie.  Compare Zimmerman's boo-boos to an MMA fight and the time it takes for an MMA fighter to have someone kiss it make it feel better.


That would only be a defense against charges for attempted murder not for assault w/ a deadly weapon.
 
2013-07-15 05:28:35 PM

El Pachuco: Mike Chewbacca: We don't know who threw the first punch.

There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates that GZ punched TM at any point.


It's pretty convenient.
 
2013-07-15 05:28:48 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?

Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?


If Zimmerman's boo-boos came from "pounding," then he must have been wrestling with a Muppet.  And remember...Zimmerman contends he was hit "dozens" of times.

Here's hoping Zimmy starts looking for the "REAL" assaulter:

col.stb.s-msn.com
 
2013-07-15 05:28:50 PM

Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.


You realize the only outside witness to the fight testified he never saw Martin ramming Zimmerman's head into the concrete right?
 
2013-07-15 05:30:10 PM
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

Anyone get BINGO yet?
 
2013-07-15 05:30:53 PM
I think all of this goes to the overwhelming desire of some to see a racial issue where there was none, or at least zero evidence of any.  Was Travon's death a tragedy?  Certainly.  Did both TM and GZ play a role in it?  Certainly.  Both were doing things that were 100% legal and well within there respective rights up until TM was on top of GZ.  As the saying goes, TM's right to free expression stop at the tip of GZ's nose.  I'm not saying specifically that TM started it, but all evidence would lean that way.

It has been pointed out the GZ had a restraining order, etc.  All good information.  I hope those same people will also weigh that TM appeared to be likes-to-fight guy.  Does it tip the balance?  Not sure, but it is most certainly not entirely one sided.
 
2013-07-15 05:31:09 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?

Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?


I'm talking about what we KNOW happened.  Not what Zimmerman and the simpletons who take up his narrative argue did happen.

Since Zimmerman never had to face anyone confronting his narrative in court I'm not particularly interested in any argument that begins by accepting what Zimmerman says happened at face value.
 
2013-07-15 05:31:39 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.

And if Martin, NOT YOU, felt that Zimmerman was putting his life in danger what was he justified in doing?


Well clearly Martin wasn't justified in running away from Zimmerman twice, and preparing an ambush for the anonymous guy who wouldn't stop chasing after him. Not knowing who George Zimmerman was (because when Martin asked Zimmerman "why are you following me" Zimmerman rolled up the window on his truck instead of replying "I'm the neighborhood watch."), why WOULDN'T Martin have feared for his life?
 
2013-07-15 05:32:33 PM

gimmegimme: Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?

Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?

If Zimmerman's boo-boos came from "pounding," then he must have been wrestling with a Muppet.  And remember...Zimmerman contends he was hit "dozens" of times.

Here's hoping Zimmy starts looking for the "REAL" assaulter:

[col.stb.s-msn.com image 300x300]


So you admit that he was pounded, and his injuries provide the physical evidence.  Now that we have agreed on that, let us move to some other point.
 
2013-07-15 05:33:07 PM

phygz: Zerochance:
What part of what I posted is wrong?  Zimmerman did have a restraining order against him filed by his ex for domestic violence. So did  he against that same girlfriend, no arrest He was arrested for assaulting an officer. Intervened on behalf of a friend who was being harassed by an undercover cop, no charges filed He had a history of calling in to 911 to report perceived threats that's what NW people do.  It's certainly a more factually-based opinion than the ITG brigade stopping itself short from saying Trayvon deserved to die merely for being a punk-ass kid. Nobody has ever said that.

Seriously it's really easy to tell when someone knows only what the race-baiters have told them to think.

the next part of the song will no doubt include 'HE WAS ORDERED BY THE POLICE NOT TO FOLLOW" "GZ WAS A RACIST STALKER" and, my personal favorite "TM WAS AFRAID AND ONLY DEFENDING HIMSELF"


a.) Mutual warrant or not, the judge in the case awarded both warrants, so odds are Zimmerman did hit his ex and was guilty of domestic battery.
b.) Zimmerman's assault charge stemmed because his buddy was caught drinking underage.  It wasn't "harrassment"
c.) Yes, it's totally cool to call 911 to report suspicious activity, except Zimmerman called 911 a total of 46 farking times.  You are in no way justified to call 911 that many times.  That is undeniably zealotry.
d.) You're not saying Martin deserved to die per se, but that is the logical conclusion for dick-riding George Zimmerman.
 
2013-07-15 05:33:19 PM

Fart_Machine: Bartman66: gimmegimme: Bartman66: A few scratches on the back of his head? according to?? Your expert knowledge as a juror that was in there listening and privy to seeing all of the information? or just the internet guy saying.. "Man.. it was just a few scratches and that isn't assault!" .. well actually... that is EXACTLY what assault is. You know... slamming someone's head on the concrete. But you're arguing that it wasn't hard enough and only had some blood and swelling (according to the pics allot of both) and the nose that was out shape from the punches (as shown in a pic had parts sticking out and the EMT pushed it back into place) really wasn't that bad and is not assault either.

OK... unfortunately you were not on the jury and others, who obviously understood what assault is and what self defense is, were there.

Yeah, those boo-boos were pretty ouchie.  I heard they needed two EMTs to kiss them.

Again you just either don't or refuse to see it. It is the fact that they were bad enough (in your mind) that  doesn't matter. If he felt (not you) that his life ws in danger by .. you know... getting his head rammed into the sidewalk and getting punched, he was justified in protecting himself with deadly force.
Hopefully young men and yes 17 is a young MAN not boy, will think twice before attacking someone.

You realize the only outside witness to the fight testified he never saw Martin ramming Zimmerman's head into the concrete right?


Glad to see 1 + 1 == 3 when its convenient for you.
 
2013-07-15 05:33:43 PM

Zerochance: Zimmerman did have a restraining order against him filed by his ex for domestic violence.


Restraining order was mutual, there was no evidence of abuse, and the judge called it a "routine matter." This was discussed in court.

Zerochance: He was arrested for assaulting an officer.


The officer was an undercover officer who did not identify himself as an officer to Zimmerman. The charges were dropped from a felony to misdemeanor when the circumstances came before the judge, Zimmerman entered a pretrial diversion program, and all charges were dropped. This was discussed in court.

Zerochance: He had a history of calling in to 911 to report perceived threats.


Zimmerman had 46 calls over a number of years, all of them to the non-emergency number (NOT 911), most of the about open garage doors, illegal parking, and kids playing unsafely in the street. This averages out 2 a month or less for the time period in question.

The neighborhood watch coordinator testified that Zimmerman was the point of contact for the Sanford PD, so that other residents were supposed to call him with their concerns and he was supposed to be the one that related those concerns to the police, so some of those calls were on the behalf of other people.

Six of those calls were about suspicious African Americans that Zimmerman didn't recognize, all of them during a period of time when the neighborhood was being burglarized by young, African American males.

All of this was discussed in court.

Zerochance: It's certainly a more factually-based opinion than the ITG brigade stopping itself short from saying Trayvon deserved to die merely for being a punk-ass kid.


So you are OK with talking about Zimmerman's past, but not about Martin's? You want to avoid the fact that Martin's text messages revealed he was interested in fighting, that he had been in several fights, and that his younger brother asked Martin to teach him to fight. You want to avoid the fact that his cellphone contained conversations where he was talking about doing DXM and codeine. You want to avoid the fact that that same phone contained text messages that revealed Martin was actively trying to buy a gun.

All of this was discussed in court testimony, which you would know if you had watched the trial. But you obviously didn't.

Really? It's ok to talk about Zimmerman's past, but not Martin's? What planet do you live on?

By all means, don't let those little "facts" get in the way of your understanding of the situation. No one else is.
 
2013-07-15 05:35:36 PM

Munchausen's Proxy: gimmegimme: Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?

Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?

If Zimmerman's boo-boos came from "pounding," then he must have been wrestling with a Muppet.  And remember...Zimmerman contends he was hit "dozens" of times.

Here's hoping Zimmy starts looking for the "REAL" assaulter:

[col.stb.s-msn.com image 300x300]

So you admit that he was pounded, and his injuries provide the physical evidence.  Now that we have agreed on that, let us move to some other point.


?  I'm saying if he was pounded, then his boo-boos must have been caused by a person whose weight and height approximated a Muppet...in a hoodie.
 
2013-07-15 05:35:56 PM

Blathering Idjut: Munchausen's Proxy: Blathering Idjut: Dimensio: I have never asserted Mr. Zimmerman to be a hero. I recognize his behaviour prior to the altercation to be unwise, however a lack of wisdom is not itself criminal

Should a "lack of wisdom" that results in the death of someone else, whether intentional or not, be held to criminal penalties that are at least as serious as being caught littering?

Obviously it's not.  At least in Florida.  But should it be?

Would it also be unwise to pound a strangers head into the sidewalk?

I'm talking about what we KNOW happened.  Not what Zimmerman and the simpletons who take up his narrative argue did happen.

Since Zimmerman never had to face anyone confronting his narrative in court I'm not particularly interested in any argument that begins by accepting what Zimmerman says happened at face value.


What we KNOW is what other witnesses testified to in open court - are they lying?  We also KNOW what he told to the police and was corroborated by physical evidence that GZ had no prior knowledge.  The investigating officer also testified to this in open court.  Was he also lying?  I would like to know what special evidence you have that was not presented.
 
Displayed 50 of 442 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report